Share This Story!

NCAA seeks clarification prior to appeal of O'Bannon case

The NCAA said Sunday morning it will appeal last week's ruling on the Ed O'Bannon images and likenesses lawsuit. Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer, said in a statement the Association remains "confident

The NCAA said Sunday morning it will appeal last week's ruling on the Ed O'Bannon images and likenesses lawsuit, and in the early hours of Monday morning, it took its first steps, asking U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to clarify the effective date of the injunction she issued.

In a filing made in California at around 12:30 a.m. Pacific Time, lawyers for the NCAA said it is seeking clarification "on an urgent basis because it has already started receiving queries from numerous college administrators across the country seeking guidance regarding the effect of the Court's injunction."

The NCAA wrote that the wording of the injunction -- a document separate from Wilken's 99-page ruling -- "has prompted concerns among colleges and universities that the injunction might, contrary to the Court's opinion, apply immediately to current student-athletes."

So the association is effectively asking Wilken to state in writing that it does not apply to current athletes and will not affect NCAA rules concerning "benefits for student-athletes enrolled in college prior to July 1, 2016."

Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer, said in a statement Sunday the Association remains "confident that the NCAA has not violated the antitrust laws and intend to appeal. We will also be seeking clarity from the District Court on some details of its ruling."

On Friday, Wilken ruled that NCAA limits on what major college football and men's basketball players can receive for playing "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws.

"The NCAA has a right to appeal, but there comes a time when any rational person has to come to the conclusion that it's time to cut your losses and be accountable for your wrongs," said Michael Hausfeld, the plaintiffs' lead attorney.

Wilken's ruling could enable football and men's basketball players to receive more from schools than they currently receive -- including several thousand dollars a year that would be placed in trust until their eligibility expires or they graduate. But Wilken imposed some limits and rejected the plaintiffs' proposal that athletes be allowed to receive money for endorsements. "Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote.

In her ruling, Wilken said the injunction will not be stayed pending any appeal of her ruling, but it will not take effect until the start of the next Football Bowl Subdivision and Division I basketball recruiting cycles. In the injunction document she wrote: "This injunction shall not affect any prospective student-athlete who will enroll in college before July 1, 2016."

However, the NCAA noted that in addressing the deferred compensation, the injunction document refers to payments "for the licensing or use of prospective, current, or former ... players' names, images, and likenesses."

Concerning the ruling's reference to the next football and basketball recruiting cycles, the NCAA wrote that "the term 'recruiting cycle' is potentially ambiguous.

"Under existing NCAA rules," the association added, "student-athletes in the next recruiting cycle (i.e., student-athletes who would first enroll in college in Fall 2016) may receive offer letters from colleges starting on August 1, 2015. ... NCAA seeks to confirm that the existing NCAA rules can remain in force until August 1, 2015."

The NCAA lawyers provided further explanation of why they are asking Wilken to make all of this as precise as possible -- language that gives insight into the wide-range of uncertainty facing schools in the wake of the O'Bannon ruling, as well as last week's Division I Board of Directors actions regarding a form of rules-making autonomy for schools in the five power conferences.

"Colleges are in the midst of the offer letter process for prospective student-athletes planning to start college in 2015," the NCAA lawyers wrote. "Budgets and financial aid for the coming academic year are already in place or being finalized. The status of the rules governing current and 2015 enrolling student-athletes needs to be clear as soon as possible. And as to student-athletes starting college in or after 2016, the NCAA member colleges may need to adopt new rules to address a variety of matters raised by the injunction and the Court's opinion ... As the Court's Findings appreciate, it takes time for the hundreds of Division I colleges to consider and adopt new rules."

NCAA President Mark Emmert told ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos that college sports' largest governing body found a lot in the decision that was "admirable" and some parts they disagreed with so strongly that they could not let it go unchallenged in court.

"Yes, at least in part we will," Emmert said when asked whether the NCAA planned an appeal. "No one on our legal team or the college conferences' legal teams think this is a violation of antitrust laws and we need to get that settled in the courts."

The complete statement from Remy:

"We remain confident that the NCAA has not violated the antitrust laws and intend to appeal. We will also be seeking clarity from the District Court on some details of its ruling.

"It should be noted that the Court supported several of the NCAA's positions, and we share a commitment to better support student-athletes. For more than three years, we've been working to improve the college experience for the more than 460,000 student-athletes across all three divisions. On Thursday, the Division I Board of Directors passed a new governance model allowing schools to better support student-athletes, including covering the full cost of attendance, one of the central components of the injunction. The Court also agreed that the integration of academics and athletics is important and supported by NCAA rules.

"Further, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the NCAA licensed student-athletes' names, images and likenesses to EA Sports or anyone else. It also rejected the plaintiffs' proposed model where athletes could directly market their names, images and likenesses while in college.

We look forward to presenting our arguments on appeal, and in the meantime we will continue to champion student-athlete success on the field and in the classroom."